Long a good-government buzzword, the term now seems more popular than ever; nearly everyone from President Barack Obama down to the lowliest freshman state lawmaker in Sacramento extols bipartisanship’s virtues.

So what is it, really? Webster’s New World Dictionary defines bipartisan as “of, representing or supported by two parties,” but that doesn’t address the question of threshold.

Is a bill bipartisan if eight Republican senators join 54 Democrats in supporting it and three Democrats join 32 Republicans in voting against it, as happened March 10 with the cloture vote for the $410 billion omnibus spending bill? If not, what threshold would make it bipartisan — 10 GOP votes? 15?

In another example, Republicans blasted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act economic stimulus as a failure of bipartisanship: All House Republicans present for the Jan. 28 vote opposed it, joined by three Democrats. Yet that bill had undergone a marathon Appropriations Committee markup at which many Republican amendments were heard, if only a few were accepted — a bipartisan process if not a bipartisan vote, and little surprise given the two parties’ vastly different views of how to deal with the recession. In the Senate, three Republicans ultimately voted for the bill after exacting cuts. President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders might have preferred more GOP support, but after accepting GOP input and putting an alternate GOP plan to a vote, should they have scuttled their bill in the name of bipartisanship if Republicans wouldn’t vote for it?

Here in California — one of only three states requiring two-thirds votes of the Legislature to pass budget and tax bills — the Republican minority makes no bones about using its power to stymie such bills to exact concessions, sometimes related to those bills and sometimes not, from the Democratic majority. Is that bipartisanship?

Compromise may be a precious commodity, but not always attainable when parties have diametrically opposed views.

“Having a process in which you at least listen to the other side and try to engage the other side” is important and useful “even if it doesn’t result in a lot of votes on the bill,” said UC Berkeley political science Professor Eric Schickler, co-author of “Partisan Hearts and Minds” and “Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate.”

This seems to be Obama’s stance, he said, seeking at least to “lower the political temperature a bit” after decades of escalating rhetoric. “Even if the bills aren’t going to end up being bipartisan, having an atmosphere that’s a little more respectful is going to be useful.”

“In the early 20th century, the Republican and Democratic leaders would disagree with one another forcefully on the floor but afterward they might go have drinks with one another … whereas now, there’s no chance Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner would have any social contact with one another if they could avoid it,” Schickler said; “a baseline level of trust” has been lost.

“You can have partisanship without it being quite as personally nasty and really villainizing the other side,” he said. “The only way to get a lot of Republican votes would be to completely wipe out the direction of the policies, and he (Obama) is not going to do that.”

Some say even a pretense of bipartisanship is a waste of time and effort.

“I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane,” liberal blogger John Cole wrote in February, though such a sentiment could’ve come from either side of the political spectrum. “Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.”

There is some hope, at least on certain issues. Walnut Creek native Matthew Rojansky is executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America, a Washington, D.C.-based group “dedicated to re-creating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy.”

“It’s just fundamentally more effective when the United States can speak with one voice on those issues,” he said.

Rojansky’s group aims to create “safe space on specific foreign policy issues” for more such bipartisan ventures. Recently, it convened Democratic and Republican former diplomats, defense officials and others to map out a plan for U.S.-Russian relations. It’s also launching a fellowship program to teach conflict-resolution and negotiation skills to junior House and Senate staff members, for use not only at international summits but on Capitol Hill as well.

“This is not a one-administration or a two-term challenge, … this is a fundamental, sea-change challenge,” Rojansky said. But with voters’ frustration steadily rising, “there really is a strong incentive to show concrete progress in reaching out to folks on the other side of the aisle, saying ‘I am the Dick Lugar of my generation’ or ‘I am the Sam Nunn of my generation.'”

Some blame legislative districts that are gerrymandered to be “safe” for one party or the other, making centrist moderation unnecessary to win elections and so putting more staunch partisans into office; even a new redistricting system might not make much difference in a state so Balkanized, with politically like-minded people clustered geographically. And with both major parties’ leaders willing to punish those who stray from the party line, there’s not much incentive to compromise.

“There are local things that can exacerbate it, like the two-thirds vote, but we’re a reflection of a national phenomenon,” said Timothy Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Sacramento State. A state Senate staffer for 15 years, he said bipartisanship used to be “a willingness to settle for half a loaf,” but that’s not the case today.

“There’s a difference between extortion and engagement. If you sit down as the Republicans did in November and say, ‘We won’t even come to the table unless you agree to X, Y and Z’ … that’s extortion,” he said, adding true bipartisanship also “requires a majority to say, ‘We’re willing to sit down and work with you and we’re not going to stack committees … and we’re going to allow minority members to successfully author some bills.'”

Yet the parties are so entrenched now that reconciliation overtures often begin, “I’ll be reasonable but you’ve got to be reasonable first,” Hodson said.

Ultimately, he said, “the party in the minority has to understand our system respects their right to be heard,” but voters have put them in the minority and they don’t have “the moral, democratic right to stop the will of the majority on every single thing.”

Hodson predicts that “as Obama continues to try to reach out his hand for bipartisanship and the Republicans slap it down,” the GOP will suffer public reprobation for refusing to engage: “I think there is a sense of ‘We’re fed up with it, we’ve had it for too long.'”

In California, watch nascent efforts to recall Republican lawmakers who voted for the budget compromise and its tax hikes, he advised. If they fizzle out, lawmakers will see they can work across the aisle “without having to worry about the pitchforks and torches,” he said.

“For CODEPINK, it’s about the issues, not the party. We usually side with Democrats in the Progressive Caucus, especially on social programs, civil liberties and the war. But CODEPINK has sympathized with right-wing Republicans who refused to bail out Wall Street, debating with our friends in the Progressive Caucus who voted for the bailout because they were pressured by Obama.” — CODEPINK and Global Exchange co-founder Medea Benjamin

“I want to see leadership focusing on the big issues and engaging in respectful dialogue. Health care, the economy, energy — fact is, the goals we must address are unifying at the core. This is the kind of bipartisanship/trans-partisanship that citizens want to see.” — MoveOn.org co-founder and MomsRising.org president and co-founder Joan Blades

“In the marketplace of ideas, the parties provide their solutions to the nation’s tough problems, and the voters decide. That’s healthy, that’s what democracy is, and it should be celebrated.” — DailyKos.com publisher Markos Moulitsas Zuniga

“Willingness to compromise for the common good is the genesis of true bipartisanship. Rigid ideology always undermines common-good agreement. The declaration by Republicans they will ‘punish’ members of their own party for recognizing they had to raise some taxes to solve the state’s fiscal crisis is failed leadership.” — California Labor Federation executive secretary-treasurer Art Pulaski

“I don’t know how bipartisanship can work when the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, has already said he wants to see the Democratic administration fail — regardless of the consequences that will have for the American people. We Democrats care about fixing the problems facing the country today and, as a leader in my political party, I have a partisan responsibility to grow our party and elect more Democrats.” — Alameda County Democratic Party chairwoman Robin Torello

“Bipartisanship happens when leaders put the public’s interest ahead of their own; it usually means that a problem was solved in a way that meets the requirements of the many, not the few.” — Bay Area Council president/CEO Jim Wunderman

“Looking past the impact on ‘your next election’ to the impact on ‘the next generation’ is part of bipartisanship. The other key ingredient is a humble recognition that one ideology holds no monopoly on wisdom, and that compromise is not surrender, but a contribution to a durable solution.” — Silicon Valley Leadership Group president/CEO Carl Guardino

“Bipartisanship is when leaders from both parties set aside their ideological differences and work together to tackle the big issues facing California. I’ve always said my job is to be the people’s servant, and by working together to serve the people — and not the special interests — we can accomplish great things for our state.” — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

“Bipartisanship is finding pragmatic solutions to real problems for California. Californians are fed up with political gridlock. Strong ideals and cross-party collaboration are not mutually exclusive.” — California Insurance Commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner

“Bipartisanship is the implementation of a political agenda based on commonly held values. Since we live in an era of increasingly less commonality, bipartisanship becomes more difficult to achieve. The problem is not the lack of bipartisanship; it is the lack of common values.” — Contra Costa County Republican Party Chairman Greg Poulos

“I don’t believe in bipartisanship. It’s an oxymoron. We are supposed to be partisan in our approach to politics. My side against your side. Argue our positions. Rumble until the best political guerrilla fighter wins. Holster your guns until the next go ’round.” — Move America Forward co-founder and former talk-radio host Melanie Morgan

“I’ve spent 35 years in both the majority and the minority in Congress and I realize that the perfect bipartisan system has never been achieved. But the goal is for the majority to include the minority in deliberations and discussions when framing legislation and offer the opportunity for amendments. It doesn’t mean that the minority’s views are guaranteed to prevail.” — House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Martinez

“Bipartisanship is finding common ground and shared beliefs. It is a never-ending process, but one that can reap the greatest rewards.” — Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto

“Bipartisanship will never manifest in rhetoric alone, not in words but deeds. Often do I witness their sound and fury, publicized under the guise of bipartisanship, but it signifies little during votes. While the media makes little mention of this incongruity, it is not lost on constituents who are calling for bipartisan solutions. Consistency and accountability, then, are key to making this work.” — Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose

Show me the way

Matthew Rojansky, executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America, cites the cooperation of President Harry Truman — in some ways, a partisan liberal Democrat — and U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg — in some ways, a partisan conservative Republican — for building support on key policies such as:

Creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Implementing the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe

Promulgating the Truman Doctrine of containing Soviet expansionism.
He also cites the cooperation of U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., in the early 1990s on a Cooperative Threat Reduction program that has deactivated and secured thousands of nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union, among our nation’s greatest nonproliferation efforts.

Three women have told the New York Times that music mogul Russell Simmons raped them, the latest in a cascade of serious allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful men in entertainment, media, politics and elsewhere.